Vetcetera Five reasons why Barak Obama and John McCain are not my pets’ BFFs

November 3rd, 2008  

Add Comment37 Comments

Supposedly, the McCain's have many pets of different types, and Cindy McCain loves animals.

The Obama's have agreed -- after much public pressure in the wake of their revelation during the primaries that their daughters want a dog -- to adopt from a shelter.

That's all I know about their personal animal situations -- but . . .

The Humane Scorecard gives McCain a score of 17 out of a possible 100 for votes on their tracked animal legislation. Obama was rated 67. So this might give you some idea of how their attitudes affecting animals. In spite of that huge difference between their ratings, there are lots of legislators that scored much higher than Obama, including his fellow senator from Illinois, Richard Durbin, who you may recall was fabulous during the pet food recall business -- he scored a 100.

See http://www.fund.org/pdfs/2008_humane_scorecard.pdf...

Stefani November 3rd, 2008 08:43:00 AM

I just hope that Obama doesn't get a dog for the image like Bill Clinton did, only to ditch him later or have him get hit by a car due to neglect. Two of the Clintons' dogs were killed by cars and they gave their cat away after they left the White House.

Several past choices made by Mr. Obama seem like political expedient image building decisions to me. The jury is out on if the promised dog for his kids will be the same.

The remarkable Cindy McCain's past, in contrast, speaks to the heart of a rescuer. I don't know the details of their herd of dogs, but her work with children around the world is inspiring. Her husband never seems to talk about himself candidly ... except to say that he's a maverick. So I have no idea if the pack is all her responsibility or if he's a dog person too.

Christopher Landauer November 3rd, 2008 08:58:00 AM

Thanks for posting that link to the scorecard. After seeing what the issues were, the HSUS stamp means a whole lot less to me. The issues they were backing aren't as cut and dry.

For instance, the first measure is the horse slaughter measure. I am not super well read on this, but I understand that there have been a lot of negative effects from this. There was a story just last night on the local news of the huge surplus in horses flooding local rescue groups. The story mentioned that many animals are being left in the pasture to starve and die. There's also a growing trade of these animals to Mexico where animals that might sell for thousands of dollars in a good market are being sold for food to Mexico at auctions for nearly nothing.

I see a fundamental dislocation with some ideologues who see no justifiable homicide for animals under any circumstances (for food, for over population, for animal control, etc), yet fight for unfettered abortion rights with humans. In one instance they want government to stay out, the other they want the government to step in. And it's not really resolved by clever definitions of what life is or what beings have souls and all that.

Christopher Landauer November 3rd, 2008 09:13:00 AM

Why wait 3 hours to vote if you don't think there's much between them? I could understand if you thought one was going to be much worse than the other... and why can't the US get more polling stations going, this seems to happen there to a certain extent every election? *curious*

Sian November 3rd, 2008 09:51:00 AM

Sian: Despite anything my above post might intimate, I do see a difference in the candidates on a host of other issues. I will be voting for Obama this year. Palin sealed that, though Biden makes me cringe, too.

Even if I didn't see much of a difference between the Presidential candidates there are still plenty of reasons for me to vote: senate and congressional races, amendments, propositions...

And, of course, my duty as a citizen, right?

Dr. Patty Khuly November 3rd, 2008 10:00:00 AM

Christopher,

I am aware that people of good intention disagree on the HorseSlaughter prevention Act. However, by focusing on that alone, you may mislead readers of this blog into believing the other issues the Humane Scorecard is based on are similarly controversial for animal lovers.

The other issues on which the score was based are:

-- Requiring humane euthanasia of downed animals

-- Prohibiting the use of animals sourced from Class B dealers who "randomly source" the animals they sell for research. Undercover investigations including HBO's special, "Dealing Dogs," showed that many of these Class B dealers fraudulently pose as adopters to obtain pets advertised "free to good home." There have even been serious allegations of pet theft out of yards. Some Class B dealers will buy a dog from anyone showing up without certifying how the animal was obtained.

-- Making dogfighting and cockfighting etc. felonies.

-- Signing a letter requesting funds for implementation of the Animal Welfare Act and other issues INCLUDING funds to help address the shortage of veterinarians.

When it comes to the humane scorecard, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You are only focusing on one thing and should not discredit it on that alone.

Stefani November 3rd, 2008 10:21:00 AM

Thanks for replying-I thought you were more indifferent than you in fact are from your article! I also didn't realise there were other things to vote about as well as presidential at this particular ballot.

Of course it's an important part of democracy-my mother usually goes just to spoil her paper to show she cares about democracy even if she doesn't like the candidates on offer. I doubt she'd queue 3 hours to do that though-I've never been to a polling station in my life that there's been more than a couple of people in, although I don't know how much that has to do with UK local governmental organisational skills or voter turnout!

Sian November 3rd, 2008 10:54:00 AM

Sian - The ballot in Florida is two, double-sided, pages long. There are lots of state and local offices and amendments on the ballot which have major implications for us common folk (much more so, then which of these two losers becomes the next PoTUS). So, even if you don't give a rip about the national presidential race, there are plenty of other legitimate reasons to cast your ballot.

Chip November 3rd, 2008 11:05:00 AM

Obama has been endorsed by HSUS for President. This is the first time that HSUS has endoresed a presidental canidate. In his [HSUS] questionnaire response, Obama pledges support for nearly every animal protection bill pending in Congress. For people who believe in animal welfare NOT aniaml rights, it is felt that Obama and a democratic congress could inact much legislation that would take away the rights of pet owners, such as universal mandatory spay/neuter(where would all of our pets come from?).

McCain does have many dogs. He hunts over a Springer Spaniel. He is an outdoors kind of man. Why this comparsion has not been brought forward, I dont know. There are some many things in this campagin that have not been made know, it just blows my mind away. Yes, Palin does know how to handle a gun, hunts and eats what she kills. She is no pansy. Dont we need people who are tough and will stand up for their beliefs, like McCain and Palin in office? McCain was tough to survive being a prisoner of war. There are no perfect people; one must go for the canidate that can do the most good or the least harm.

Diane November 3rd, 2008 11:06:00 AM

Palin sealed the deal for me as well. I think McCain and Obama are good men, at heart- and I had a hard time choosing between the two. Until Palin entered the arena... From everything I've read and researched on her, she is no friend to animals nor to the environment and for some reason, she simply... It's a visceral feeling, really, but I really, really do not want her in the White House.

Let's not even discuss the wolf issue again... It makes me so mad.

Emma November 3rd, 2008 11:26:00 AM

Re:

"universal mandatory spay/neuter(where would all of our pets come from?)."

LOL.

While there may be reasonable arguments against mandatory spay/neuter, the idea that there wouldn't be enough dogs and cats to go around is not one of them.

Stefani November 3rd, 2008 11:58:00 AM

Hmm, you could flip a coin...I'm kidding. I took a look at the human scorecard thanks for the link. Overall I think you have to ponder the pros and cons at least there are a lot of voters motivated to get to the polls this year.

Unfortunately, animals don't vote so even though more that 63% of American households have them it isn't a big important piece in the campaign strategy.

BTW it will be interesting if any new pets get their own website focus such as Barney & Miss Beazley have enjoyed. (Click on my name to see my post from 2007)

Diana Guerrero November 3rd, 2008 12:16:00 PM

# Posted By Stefani
While there may be reasonable arguments against mandatory spay/neuter, the idea that there wouldn't be enough dogs and cats to go around is not one of them.
************
In many parts of the country via volunterry spay/neuter 70 plus percent of dogs and 90 percent of owned cats are already neutered(feral cats are another issue entirely). So can 25 to 30 percent of the dogs provide pets for the nation? I do not want to get my dog from off the streets of Mexico or Thailand. I want to have the purebred of my choice.

Diane November 3rd, 2008 12:31:00 PM

Frankly, I'd much rather see the day when it costs a lot and requires a wait to get a dog or cat than the situation we have now, with so many being killed for lack of homes.

Stefani November 3rd, 2008 12:59:00 PM

And if you care about the contamination of animal and human food from China - then a vote for Obama is in order. Durbin is his mentor, and I believe that items at the top of Durbin's to-do list are going to get attention from Obama.

2CatMom November 3rd, 2008 03:47:00 PM

Stefani - I didn't mean to dismiss it en masse, my only point is that what the HSUS wants isn't necessarily what I want and when you can actually look at the sub issues, it illuminates what those votes really mean.

For instance, the Farm Bill is way too large to be telling... and that seems to me to be the only issue where the HSUS identifies "anti-animal position" votes for Senators (3 or 4 of our candidates).

The other issue is that credit is only given for cosponsoring bills, not simply voting for them.

My dogs have it pretty well and I don't specifically see any reason to seek change in government on their behalf, and general animal welfare issues simply aren't weighty enough to shift my vote. The bullet points are helpful in specific lobbying efforts though, i.e. who needs to get a letter or a call over a specific issue.

Christopher Landauer November 3rd, 2008 05:26:00 PM

two words dear: absentee ballot

As a very busy, full time who works out of state 30 mi from home, I find it to be a blessing. My vote is already in. No lines, no worries about getting there in time or getting up extra early for an already long day.

Christine November 3rd, 2008 06:16:00 PM

So many bills designed to promote animal welfare are shortsighted and ill-considered. I disagree with Stefani that a mandatory universal spay/neuter bill would be a good idea as things currently stand (I do NOT trust that the right people would be in charge of breeding the next generation of household pets). No matter how many animals are dying right now due to overpopulation, that number pales next to the rest of forever, which is what we're talking about when we're talking about good, sustainable breeding practices. (On the other hand, a mandatory spay/neuter for EVERY animal that ends up at a shelter without a good excuse sounds like a great idea, as well as cracking down on BYBing and puppy/kitten mills in specific.)

Mr. Landauer can't be serious when he suggests that the good fortune of his personal pets should blind us to the suffering of other animals.

A few thoughts: animal welfare is most realistically addressed on the local level. Someone needs to see for themselves if animals are happy or suffering. I don't think the presidential candidates are very different in terms of alleviating animal suffering (no matter how different they are in terms of pandering to interest groups), but no presidential candidate is going to be able to make a difference the way that local judges, local legislation, (empowered) local animal control, and neighbors can. No president is going to revolutionize industrial agriculture to end animal suffering. The government has its finger in that pie for other reasons altogether.

On the other hand, think of how little animals need from us to be happy! They need SO MUCH LESS than people need. If a government/society can't even get animals right (food, shelter, health care, love -- DONE!), it doesn't have a chance where people (+education, +technology, +complex societies, +etc.) are concerned.

Finally, think about which societies, cultures, and constitutions developed domestic animal breeds and cherished and preserved them. I don't know what I think yet, but it sure gives me a different perspective on history and how I want our own history to go!

deidrel November 3rd, 2008 06:18:00 PM

When I think of the money spent on all these campaigns, it's crazy! Tree after tree to print the same thing over and over. My "beef" is there should be campaign limits for all & equal. After this past week, I feel like not voting, but of course I will. I, too, believe that animal welfare is in the hands of the local, state, and congressional races---not the presidential.

Seriously, if the Obama family has no pet at present, they really shouldn't get one at all.

Barbara A. Albright/New Hampshire November 3rd, 2008 06:35:00 PM

re: "I disagree with Stefani that a mandatory universal spay/neuter bill would be a good idea"

If you will reread my comments, although I said I'd rather see a day in which it was hard to get a pet than one in which many are killed for lack of homes, I never specifically declared support for a mandatory universal spay/neuter bill.

stefani November 3rd, 2008 07:40:00 PM

Deadly serious. I can say with almost guaranteed certainty that I will never cast a vote for President based upon animal welfare issues. Nor do I consider government the answer to every problem.

Not only is mandatory spay neuter much ado about nothing and extremely destructive should it pass nationally, but it's endemic of the nanny state government interference into issues that government has never shown an ability to manage better than the private sector and the will of free markets.

Making national leadership politics vs. animal politics even more at odds are the numerous contradictions present. For instance, how can you reconcile voting for a candidate who believes in abortion as an acceptable solution to human population issues but makes a stink about shelter deaths?

From my vantage point the two stereotypical positions on either side seek to change the rules instead of admit inconsistencies. Pro abortion anti kill would say "fetuses aren't life, animals are" and Anti abortion pro kill would say "fetuses have souls, animals don't."

I think my stance is pretty consistent on both issues and to me the biggest travesty isn't the moral aspect of "no fetus should die" or "no dog should die" ... but rather the appeal to efficiency: justifiable homicides are probably required in both realms, but there are so many un-needed homicides for stupid reasons like red tape, ineffective bureaucracies, ignorance, and squandering of resources instead of necessity.

That's why the results, not the intentions, of laws are more important to me. I could care less if spay-neuter MEANS well if the result is an atrocity. Same can be said for the horse bill, etc.

And in general I think you should be the light you want to see in the world (to steal a line) instead of getting all huffy with the government to enforce your views on others with more programs.

If you want to save animals, become a vet like the good Doctor. If you want to support rescue, rescue an animal. If you want to avoid pet over-population, buy a puppy from a good breeder and keep it. There's way too much telling other people how to live and way too little personal responsibility.

Christopher Landauer November 3rd, 2008 09:14:00 PM

Sorry Stefani!! I reread your post and I apologize for misremembering it. Seriously -- I won't do it again!!

Christopher: the problem is that our hands are tied on a local level. So many animal control officers KNOW about puppy mills, underfed horses, crazy cat ladies, but without legislation, they can't do anything about it. I agree with you that across-the-board legislation isn't really the way to go. Otherwise, when you legislate a 5 cat maximum limit in order to combat hoarders, you also outlaw the rescuer who is taking care of a momma cat and two litters. Or when you outlaw chaining dogs outside, you successfully prevent the (visible) suffering of a lot of ghetto dogs, but make it impossible for a lot of nice, stable renters with a dog line in the backyard to keep providing their dogs with homes unless they can get fences installed. If you make "backyard breeding" illegal, what happens to the farmers whose sheepdogs aren't purebred, but have been healthy and talented for generations? Etc., etc. But without a law to back them up, what can the police or animal control do when they come across a really bad situation? And finally, what about the argument that if our entire economy and society is ultimately bad for animals, it must be bad for people too? Before the industrial revolution, people (including the handicapped, the elderly, and the young) and animals were valued because they were valuable. Now society's values have changed, and animal welfare is the big red warning sign that something is seriously wrong.

Speaking of animal welfare and its (sometimes mundanely) inextricable link to human welfare, it looks like the petfood scare has become an all-around food scare:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/world/asia/01chi...

deidrel November 3rd, 2008 10:18:00 PM

"So many animal control officers KNOW about puppy mills, underfed horses, crazy cat ladies, but without legislation, they can't do anything about it."
But why can't they? I'm not picking on the person who wrote the statement above... I'm truly curious.
Most towns have basic, reasonable laws that require some minimum level of care for animals (food, water, shelter, medical care, exercise, etc.). And they DO provide for penalties if those requirements aren't met.
Why can't the AC officers use the existing laws? If the penalties are not strict enough, or if the care requirements are too low or not descriptive enough, that can be easily fixed. From what I've seen and heard of, these laws just aren't enforced. If the AC officers do know of people who have more pets than they can properly care for, or a breeding kennel with dogs kept in poor conditions they ARE able to do something about it. That they DON'T do something about it speaks more to being understaffed, or underfunded or having other departmental problems and NOT to the need for more comprehensive legislation.

Barb November 4th, 2008 01:22:00 AM

Barb: Thanks for pointing that out. I believe you that understaffing, underfunding, and non-enforcement is a bigger part of the problem in most areas than legislation (and if more legislation is needed, there's no point until existing legislation is enforced!). But as far as I know, if, e.g., a puppy mill or backyard breeder is providing food, water, shelter, exercise, and responding to medical emergencies, then they're not breaking the law. This is why I disagree with Christopher that the private sector and the will of free markets will ever make things work out for animals. Puppy mills are PRECISELY serving the will of free markets. I'm also skeptical about democratic processes where animals are concerned. Random private citizens watching the morning news or strolling through the neighboorhood will feel sorry for a cat hoarder (she loves those cats!) and slam conservationists (those animals are being kept in *cages*!). I don't really have an answer. I just really disagree, although I sympathize, with the idea that the government needs to stay out of it altogether.

deidrel November 4th, 2008 09:50:00 AM

I take extreme exception to Christopher's assertion that any candidate who supports giving a woman a choice is doing so with population control in mind. That is a ludicrious comment. There are many reasons, whether he wants to listen to them or even admit that they exist, as to why a woman might need to make that choice - and it is not one that is made lightly.
As far as a candidate "making a stink about shelter deaths" - if there ever was/is a candidate who thought that decreasing shelter deaths was something they didn't want to support, that would say something odd about them. Knowing that it costs taxpayer dollars to run a shelter, and more money to kill and dispose of animals, and that it can both cost less and increase happiness to spay/neuter and adopt those animals, any rational candidate should side with that argument.

Kate Hathway November 4th, 2008 11:57:00 AM

McCain said he did not like the family's pet ferret. My ferrets aren't voting for him ;-)

regina November 4th, 2008 12:46:00 PM

I've never understood the great outpouring of emotion around the slaughter of horses for food, considering the millions of slaughtered cows. When I asked a person with a HSUS petition to explain, she said, "Well, cows are bred for food."

Okey dokey then.

Catherine November 4th, 2008 07:02:00 PM

I too was very surprised when nothing was brought up in the Presidential campaign about animal life//welfare, except for a smidgen about the environment.

Maybe animal welfare would have been discussed...a little...if the economy did not loom large at the end of the campaign? But I think not. And I wonder if this had anything do with with animals not being a minor priority, if anything. And significantly, there was minimal, if nothing, about VP candidate Sarah Palin's views, policy on the environment and especially, not animals. But hats off to the Wilderness Society for having TV videos in some states about her policy, i.e., wolf killing.

Actually, if Palin's policy towards animals was brought forth, it most likely would have switched gears to the environment, and especially, "drill baby drill," and the animals put on the back page. And NRA and gun control...a powerful lobby group with many Americas FOR guns...further diluting the main issues, when discussed!

Come to think about it, there was not much about human life either. Meaning, the war in Iraq and all the loss of life, across the board. Come to think of it, how many real issues were in this campaign. It seems like the focus was attacking character.

Never-the-less, in voting, I was aware of the voting record, the "compassion index" of the candidates towards animals. And this was one major standard of my vote.

But notably, the state elections did quite a bit of reporting about the ballot questions to be voted on in many states, most notably, abolishing greyhound racing in MA and Humane Factory Farming in CA.

I agree, "...the lack of animal life in the campaign strikes me as a sin of omission."

Maybe with the next Presidential election, animals will have more of a voice through us. For, it appears that animal rights/welfare is making great gains in the past few years. From the race track to the farms to the wilderness, the vast oceans.. And with our fur babies, at home with us.

Thank you for the insightful article, Dr. Doolittler!

Ronnie November 5th, 2008 07:50:00 AM

Catherine: Welcome to the club. We've come to accept cows as food on four legs instead of as the sweet, personality-imbued creatures they really are.

Horses we *think* we know. And we regard them as either pets or "majestic creatures." I think that's the difference. How can you eat a symbol of freedom? Cows, on the other hand, are viewed as lazy, stupid and placid. Not so!

If more people knew cows I bet our collective McDonald's intake would drop off precipitously.

Dr. Patty Khuly November 5th, 2008 03:06:00 PM

Barb: I agree with you, why aren't the existing laws enforced? And it isn't always over-worked or understaffed, either. I think it is lack of sentences imposed cause discouragement and I think too, it is a matter of not "clogging" the court system with these "lesser" offenses---because that is sadly the way it is viewed: by judges, attorney-prosecutors, law enforcement, and even animal cruelty/control.

Barbara A. Albright/New Hampshire November 5th, 2008 07:53:00 PM

AVI to DVD Converter

jeff June 5th, 2009 03:17:20 AM

AVI to MOV MAC

WT ETERT July 23rd, 2009 02:26:52 AM

Thank you,it is really pretty ,i like it Ed Hardy

Ed Hard September 9th, 2009 03:20:18 AM

Thanks for your sharing.This is a good access to Abercrombie and Fitch.

AF September 16th, 2009 09:31:41 PM

Your article very interesting, I have introduced a lot of friends look at this article, the content of the articles there will be a lot of attractive people to appreciate, I have to thank you such an article. Khairuddin Syach Weblog and Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa

Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa October 3rd, 2009 03:18:54 PM

Why wait 3 hours to vote if you don't think there's much between them? I could understand if you thought one was going to be much worse than the other... and why can't the US get more polling stations going, this seems to happen there to a certain extent every election? *curious* online games

Ayse October 8th, 2009 01:04:20 AM

How to convert SWF to video quickly? The first choice is professional SWF to video conversion tool, SWF to Video Converter provides you perfect output quality to convert SWF to various video formats, and also support playback on iPod, iPhone, Apple TV and versatile portable players. Besides freely converting SWF to video, this powerful SWF to Video Converter enables you to convert SWF to video at your demand, such as customize output effect, preview and take snapshot, batch conversion and so on. To convert SWF to video become easier once owning this SWF to Video Converter.

cynthiachen December 23rd, 2009 11:57:42 PM

Add Commment

Your Name:

CAPTCHA Verification